IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA 
 

JULIE A. KING FARLEY,
Appellant-Claimant,

vs. 

REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, 
Appellee. 

 

 

APPEAL FROM THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF 
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

Cause No. 06-R-3542 

 

 

November 14, 2007 

 

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

 

 

BAKER, Chief Judge 

 

 Appellant-petitioner Julie A. King Farley appeals appellee Review Board of the 

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 
this Memorandum Decision shall not be 
regarded as precedent or cited before 
any court except for the purpose of 
establishing the defense of res judicata, 
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.



Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s (the Board) dismissal of her appeal of the 
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision suspending her unemployment insurance 
benefits. The ALJ rendered its decision on September 26, 2006, and the decision includes 
the following language in its first paragraph: “This decision will become final unless the 
party receiving the adverse Decision appeals to the Review Board within eighteen (18) 
calendar days after the mailing date of this decision. The appeal must be in writing and 
signed by the appealing party.” Appellant’s App. p. 4. The paragraph goes on to state the 
required contents of the appeal and the address to which it must be mailed. 

Pursuant to the eighteen-day requirement, Farley’s appeal of the ALJ’s decision was 
due on October 23, 2006.1 Farley, however, did not file her notice of appeal until November 
17, 2006, which was twenty-five days late. The Board, therefore, dismissed Farley’s appeal 
as untimely and did not reach the merits of her claims. She now appeals. 

 Pursuant to relevant statutes, a party planning to file an administrative appeal of an 
ALJ’s decision must do so within eighteen days after the decision is mailed. Ind. Code 
§§ 22-4-17-3, -14. This court has “strictly construed IC § 22-4-17-3 to require dismissal for 
lack of jurisdiction where an appeal has not been timely filed,” further finding that a failure 
to timely comply with relevant statutory requirements “prevented the Review Board from 
acquiring jurisdiction to review the ALJ’s ruling.” Szymanski v. Review Board, 656 N.E.2d 
290, 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). The only basis for Farley’s argument that the Board should 
have considered the merits of her appeal is an assertion that her attorney somehow caused her 
to miss the deadline. But she offers no authority to support an argument that the Board is 
somehow vested with jurisdiction—when it otherwise would not be—to hear an untimely 
appeal because of an attorney error. We can only conclude, therefore, that the Board 
properly dismissed Farley’s untimely appeal of the ALJ’s decision. 

 The judgment of the Board is affirmed. 

MAY, J., and CRONE, J., concur.